class: title-slide <br> <br> <br> .center[.large[ **Between Market Making and Economic Statecraft: Geo-locating Europe in the Geopolitics of AI Regulation**]] .Small[ .center[ *RegulAite Job Talk <br> Amsterdam - 16 January 2023*] .center[<strong> Luuk Schmitz </strong> (European University Institute)] ] <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> .small[ .center[
[www.luukschmitz.com](https://www.luukschmitz.com) |
[@Luukschmitz](https://twitter.com/Luukschmitz) |
[@luukschmitz@mastodon.online](https://mastodon.online/@luukschmitz)]] --- name: contents-slide <br> .Small[ >'After the “Europe of democracy” and the “Europe of the market”, let us now pave the way for a “**Europe of power**”' (Thierry Breton, 2022) <br> >'Our positioning in this global context is firm and clear. **We are sovereign, but not equidistant**. All our efforts to regulate the digital world, are guided by a core principle: to promote a human centric model of digitalisation. **As when we engage abroad, we must stand with all those that align with these core values**.' (Margrethe Vestager, 2022) <br> >'If we don’t build our own champions in all areas — digital, artificial intelligence - **our choices will be dictated by others.**' (Emmanuel Macron, 2020) <br> > 'To be digitally sovereign, the EU must build a **truly digital single market**' (European Council, 2020) ] --- name: part1 class: inverse, center, middle ## EU Industrial Policy: After Market Making --- ## EU Industrial Policy: After Market Making .pull-left[.Small[ - Narratives about global competitiveness and a deindustrialized future profoundly shape EU politics; - Market-making narratives and policies are increasingly eclipsed by market-correcting and market-directing ones; - Although there is agreement on the importance of geopolitics and dependence on external countries such as China and the U.S., this has exposed profound rifts between member states and industries, and also between rhetoric and policy. Operationalizing the EU approach to sovereignty and autonomy and finding a European 'thrid way' will be a leitmotif of EU politics over the next years. ]] .top[ .pull-right[ <img src="data:image/png;base64,#dis3.png" width="95%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ]] --- ## Looking ahead .pull-left[ > Studying the geopolitics of industrialialization & digitalization <br> > Working on a topic that 'travels' <br> >Finding my voice as a young academic >Finding an intellectual home ] .pull-right[ <img src="data:image/png;base64,#fork.png" width="90%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] --- name: part2 class: inverse, center, middle # RegulAite: my projected research --- ## Digital Europe After Market-Making(?) .pull-left[.small[ - Technology and geopolitics increasingly interlock. In this ‘geotech world’ (King 2019), control over digital technologies can be ‘weaponized’ (Farrell and Newman 2019) and the governance of these technologies becomes a central arena ‘where political and economic power is unfolding in the twenty-first century’ (DeNardis 2014, 1). - There has been growing resistance from societies against the the economic, political, and cultural power of digital platforms. This ‘techlash’ has challenged the ‘liberal international information order’ (Farrell and Newman 2021) and the predominantly neoliberal approach to digital policymaking centered around de-, non-, or self-regulation (Cioffi, Kenney, and Zysman 2022). **The central question is how to assertively deal with these issues in an interdependent world.**]] .pull-right[ <img src="data:image/png;base64,#winter-spring.png" width="75%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] --- ## Geopolitical threat index .center[  ] --- ## Systematically measuring stakeholder positions <img src="data:image/png;base64,#jcms13428-fig-0001-m.jpg" width="52%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- ## China's variegated AI politics .pull-left[.Small[ **Core claim**: China's AI politics are driven by a similar complexity in clashing interests, fragmented approach, and coordination problems between public and private actors; Yet, its outlook on technology and state-society relations is vastly different. Possible approaches: - Bibliographic analysis & qualitative content analysis; - Expert interviews.]] .pull-right[ <img src="data:image/png;base64,#network.png" width="75%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] --- name: part2 class: inverse, center, middle # RegulAite: fit in overall project --- ## Operationalizing the Political Space for Regulatory Interdependence <br> <style type="text/css"> .tg {border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0;} .tg td{border-style:solid;border-width:0px;font-family:Souce Sans Pro, sans-serif;font-size:18px;overflow:hidden; padding:10px 5px;word-break:normal;} .tg th{border-style:solid;border-width:0px;font-family:Source Sans Pro, sans-serif;font-size:18px;font-weight:normal; overflow:hidden;padding:10px 5px;word-break:normal;} .tg .tg-baqh{text-align:center;vertical-align:top} .tg .tg-lqy6{text-align:right;vertical-align:top} .tg .tg-73oq{border-color:#000000;text-align:left;vertical-align:top} </style> <table class="tg"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="tg-lqy6"></td> <td class="tg-baqh">Low-risk</td> <td class="tg-baqh">High-risk</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="tg-baqh">Low regulatory<br>interdependence</td> <td class="tg-73oq">Benign neglect<br>Mutual recognition<br><span style="font-weight:400;font-style:normal">Externalization of domestic rules</span></td> <td class="tg-73oq">Regulatory protectionism<br>Push for international <br>standards</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="tg-baqh">High regulatory<br><span style="font-weight:400;font-style:normal">interdependence</span></td> <td class="tg-73oq">Regulatory competition<br>Mutual recognition <br>Regulatory concessions</td> <td class="tg-73oq">Push for international<br>standards<br>Regulatory protectionism<br>Embrace transnational <br>private standards</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> .center[ Within the global political economy of digital capitalism. ] --- ## Reading narratives against the grain .pull-left[ AI is a field dominated by highly charged narratives ranging from techno-optimism to geopolitical alarmism. Therefore, I would try to: - Cut through and demistify calls for sovereignty; - To see political & policy space for collaboration & AI diplomacy.] .pull-right[ <img src="data:image/png;base64,#click.png" width="30%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> <img src="data:image/png;base64,#economist.jpg" width="65%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] --- ## Final thoughts .pull-left[ Digital capitalism of the past foreclosed public paths of regulation in favor of market governance. Will the same happen now for reasons of national security? The unresolved contestation between various movements of digital sovereignty and its effects on AI diplomacy. What role for technocracy in conducting AI diplomacy with China? China's AI politics: not as top-down and coherent as it seems?] .pull-right[ <img src="data:image/png;base64,#bosch.png" width="90%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] --- class: inverse, center, middle ## Thank You! :)